Dismissing a writ petition under Article 226 challenging power cut and bill proceedings. The court held that since the petition pertained to 2012 and the notice was not served, the petition was dismissed for default.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Writ Petition No.14360 of 2012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated: 12/10/2022
C O R A M
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N. SATHISH KUMAR
Writ Petition No.14360 of 2012
a n d
M.P.Nos.2 and 3 of 2012
Gulyam Costpin rep. By its Managing Partner Mr.Shanthappan Having office at 159 Ponnurangam Street West R S Puram Coimbatore 641 002.
... Petitioner
Vs
Page No:1/6
Writ Petition No.14360 of 2012
Coimbatore.
PRAYER : Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying
for the issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records of the third respondent in memo No.CE/Comml/EE/DSM/F power cut/D39/2012 dated 25/2/2012 and the bill dated 1/6/2012 of the fifth respondent in respect of HTSC No.225 and quash the aforesaid proceedings of the third respondent and the demand in item No.21 under the bill dated 1/6/2012 of the fifth respondent in respect of HTSC No.225 and direct the respondents 2 to 5 to adjust the excess CCD of Rs.4,74,594/- available in petitioner's HTSC No.225 against the
Page No:2/6
Writ Petition No.14360 of 2012
current consumption charges for May 2012 and June 2012.
For Petitioner ... No appearance For respondents ... R 1 - No appearance
Mr.Abul Kalam for R.R.2 to 5.
O R D E R
This writ petition has been filed to quash the order passed by the third respondent in memo No.CE/Comml/EE/DSM/F power cut/D39/2012, dated 25/2/2012 and bill, dated 1/6/2012 of the fifth respondent, in respect of HTSC No.225 and direct the respondents 2 to 5 to adjust the excess CCD of Rs.4,74,594/- available in petitioner's HTSC No.225 against the current consumption charges for May 2012 and June 2012.
the petitioner nor the counsel for the first respondent is present. Mr.Abul Kalam, learned counsel for the second respondent is present.
Page No:3/6
Writ Petition No.14360 of 2012
3, From the materials available on record what comes to be known is that
notice sent to the petitioner was not served. Considering the fact that writ petition pertains to the year 2012, this Court has no other option, except to dismiss the instant petition, for default.
Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.
12/10/2022
Index : Yes / No Internet: Yes Speaking/non speaking order
mvs.
To
Page No:4/6
Writ Petition No.14360 of 2012
N. SATHISH KUMAR, J
Page No:5/6
Writ Petition No.14360 of 2012
mvs.
W.P.No.14360 of 2012
12/10/2022
Page No:6/6
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the writ petition can be entertained when the notice was not served and the jurisdiction period is statute-barred.
Gulyam Costpin rep. By its Managing Partner Mr. Shanthappan
Tamil Nadu Electricity Regulatory Commission
Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution Power Corporation (TANGEDCO)
N. Sathish Kumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
